He commented that he remembered the wide introduction of semi-automatic shotguns and how reluctantly came around and accepted those as lawful for use, but that wasn’t what he wanted the supervisors to promote banning. He wanted our semi-automatic rifles banned because they are just like hand grenades and flame throwers – or something.

I think I found a guy who would agree. From his talk of reluctantly accepting firearm technology developed in 1898, I’m pretty sure this guy would be fine with being told that the Second Amendment is really about muskets. Oh, and just like Glenn Reynolds notes about so many anti-gun activists, he was an old white man.

28 Responses to “We Need a New Term”

“I’m a hunter, but” As soon as I hear that, I ask to see their hunting license or I ask them which WMU they hunted in and which WMU they got a doe permit in. When they can’t answer those questions it’s clear they’re lying about being a hunter and everything else they’re going to say or had said was also based in lies.

Then there are the variations, “I’m a gun-owner but…” , “I’m a veteran but…”, “I’m a handgun-owner but…”

And you are right. Most of the time they are probably lying. Especially when I see such “yes, but” constructions in print, as in letters to newspapers or comments on websites, I strongly suspect they are flat out lying about being a gun-owner of some sort and are actually a gun-control activist posing as a gun-owner in order to push the cause of gun-control. It is most suspicious when the the comment includes stunning levels of ignorance about firearm regulations or firearm technology, as that is usually the mark of a gun-control advocate and not a gun-owner.

While waiting online for a pistol purchase permit, I overheard a guy saying that semi-auto rifles should be banned, but over/under shotguns were okay, because they serve a different purpose. It was all I could do to restrain myself.

Cavemen sounds like an alright term. Or Col. Ripley. Ripley was the head of the Ordnance Dept. of the US Army before and during most of the Civil War. Ripley opposed the introduction of rifled muskets, refused to buy large stocks of Enfield Rifles from Britain allowing them to be purchased by the Confederacy, opposed purchasing Spencer and Henry rifles and opposed the introduction of the Gatling Gun. Col. Ripley liked to live in the past and opposed any sort of new innovation. Much like the Fudds.

I have observed over many decades of various types of activism, that “old white men” are heavily represented among founders of things like citizens/civic organizations, taxpayers associations, etc. The typical profile will be, that they were someone who was in management in industry, has retired, and is now convinced they can apply their “management skills” to changing the world. Plus, they miss being “somebody,” and they miss exercising control.

Their failing invariably is, that their ego has led them to believe that people over the years listened to and obeyed them because of their brilliance, and not because they held the economic purse-strings of all the ass-kissers around them. So, when the get out into a different world, where their only clout lies in their persuasiveness, they fall on their faces and learn that managing volunteer activism is like herding tomcats. With distemper.

But, their longing to be listened to, again, also makes them suckers for legislators who will come to their meetings, place their arms around their shoulders, and hint that they’ll have influence if only they’ll join the Advisory Committee, or whatever. Their skills are so, so needed.

“I don’t support banning guns, but… [proceed to talk about banning guns]” is a new one cropping up. When did blatant contradictory language become so commonplace in the anti-gunner debate schema? Do they know how stupid they sound in using this tactic, if it should even be considered a tactic?

Because to these folks, these aren’t guns, they’re menaces. They threaten their cherished hobby and because they have no use for them, it logically follows no one else does either.

I would fully expect one of them to object to my R700. Because it is a black stock with extended magazines on a bipod. A tactical rifle. That no one needs that “sniper gun”. But it’s just a Remington 700 without the wood. Just serves to bring out their prejudices. If they object that it isn’t wood, ask them if they think those that are banning AR-15s now will give a crap when they call their hunting guns “long range, hyper-accurate sniper rifles” and don’t care about the pretty wood stock.

I agree with you on this. He clearly wasn’t that old. My guess is that since his attitude was that the government should ban anything he didn’t personally own or use, the concept of semi-auto shotguns being used was when someone he knew bought one and he discovered that the world didn’t actually end.

I know it may come as a shock to you, but I didn’t get angry at all. In fact, I just kind of stared at the guy feeling sorry for the fact that his very sad statement that shows how out-of-touch he is was going to be aired repeatedly on tv. I also tried not to laugh.

Rather than viewing it as some sort of struggle and application of a litmus test, what I heard was something akin to an old man ranting about how we need to ban these pesky godforsaken “iTunemp45” players because there’s just no need for those whippersnappers to carry so much dangerous and dirty rap music around everywhere in public, with a side note that he eventually came around to accepting the 8-track players in cars where kids could listen to that damn disco while driving, so he’s willing to grudgingly accept that as legal.

So, contrary to your perception that I sat there angry and glaring, it was more of a mix of feeling sorry for someone out of touch with everyone around him (quite literally in this case), feeling a bit bad for him because he was kind of making a fool of himself, and then just that sort of wonder people have when someone has said something very, very weird. I knew that we had the upper hand in making rational, fact-based arguments. Sure enough, those arguments won the day. Not a single gun owner lost their temper with the board or the old and out-of-touch guy, and all remained respectful throughout the entire process.

Both sides of the gun issue need to take it down a notch. In seven years working on this issue, I heard hateful stuff from the gun control side every bit as often as from the gun rights side. I think everyone who focuses on the issue could use a little Godly humility. If we were to extend the ludicrous rhetoric we hear on guns to all issues:

Your neighbor who wants a speed bump is a radical anti-Freedom Nazi;

Anyone who supports private school education vouchers is a chromosonally deficient hillbilly;

Any member of Congress who drinks Pepsi should be primaried and thrown out of office and

People who prefer cats to dogs are paranoid and dangerous and should lose their right to own steak knives.

I sincerely wish everyone out there could tone it down a bit and show some civil respect for their fellow Americans. End of sermon. Thanks for listening. And thanks for putting up with my visits here in a welcoming manner.

Take what down a notch? Gun owners have done nothing wrong. And what do we get?

– Threats of bans including confiscation schemes
– Limitations on capacity that have no bearing on crime. Often without grandfathering.
– Demands for liability insurance that doesn’t exist and is designed to price people out of gun ownership.
– Targeting firearms based on appearance and not even the ones used in crimes frequently. A few people out of the millions of gun owners in this country snap and suddenly everyone else has to give up their hard-earned property.
– Demands for licensing
– Massively expanding the definition of “prohibited person” using mental health and removing due process from the equation. See “terror watch list” for one example.

If a drunk driver killed a family in , we don’t ban the sales of and demand everyone who owns one be subject to onerous regulation by association?

Sometimes anti-freedom really is anti-freedom. I don’t think we need to tone it down. I think we have it exactly right. The pretty wrappings have come off and true intentions are being displayed for once. Less and less, the pols are no longer hiding behind deceptive rhetoric. They’re making their intentions clear.

Some of the proposals being pitched against guns would have the ACLU and others lining up outside courts if we attempted to apply it to any other right. But no, guns are special and evil, and deserve to be treated differently. Lesser. A sub-right for to be managed and restricted to protect its sub-human supporters.

I’ve become very tired of being branded a criminal and monster by association. All because I own similar property and have done no harm. So forgive me if civility is lacking. Those who are demanding it aren’t exactly deserving of it.

Just remember that a majority of people don’t have a well-considered opinion on this issue. They’re open to having their minds changed, but not if you come across as a loudmouth or paranoid. Don’t get baited by the true believers on the other side. They aren’t your audience.

From my years representing US Fish & Wildlife Service, I recall reading of the arguments over the status of semi-autos and pumps in migratory bird hunting, circa 1914 or so. The double-barrel enthusiasts felt the semi-auto or pump gave an unfair advantage, and wanted magazines limited to two rounds. The semi-auto users said they shouldn’t be limited because other folks chose to stick to outdated technology. In the end, the compromise was to let semi-autos and pumps have three rounds, one more than a double but not two. So even back then, a century ago, there were squabbles.